Voters behind the Colorado ballot challenge won't oppose high court review. Maine's secretary of state issues a second ruling that Trump is ineligible.
"Holding government and other public officials accountable" should be a major goal of ALL journalism. You are actually practicing it, and that's why you deserve the subscription.
So the questions presented don't question that Trump was part of an insurrection?
With the questions presented I would think that 1st will be resolved quickly (saying the president isn't an officer of the US would cause major problems), the 2nd might be were most of the argument takes place, for the 3rd also probably resolved quickly (they already can't do that for things like age etc from my understanding, rather they can make the choice... but that choice can be rejected on the grounds of not meeting the requirements to hold office)
POTUS swears an oath of office when inaugurated. Doesn't that make him/her an officer of the US?
The Constitution sets out 3 requirements for POTUS in Article II, Section 1: Minimum age 35, a natural born citizen, must have lived in the US for 14 years. So, if someone is younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, they're not qualified. Same as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I seem to recall a movement to draft Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for POTUS. Sadly, no way to get around his Austrian birth. Not qualified.
Neither is TFG, thanks to his shenanigans on 1/6/21.
Yeah I'm guessing the determination of who is an insurrectionist must fall under how the provisions of the amendment are executed (the second question)?
“The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
The Supreme Court resolved this issue with Bush v Gore: states are not required to list anyone on a presidential ballot, as they do not even need to hold an election:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. ... The state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution."
What happens if SCOTUS denies cert for this petition or for a petition from P01135809? I've been hearing that this would mean P01135809 would still go on the primary ballot but why wouldn't the CO Supreme Court ruling stand as the final word if SCOTUS doesn't want to take up the case (very hypothetical - seems like everyone expects they will take up the case)?
If they deny the petition the CO opinion would stand and he would not be on CO's primary and subsequently general (until this comes up again and SCOTUS takes it up... I mean they could choose to not take this up ever but that would be quite bad on their part)
The associational question is First Amendment, and the bar from office is Fourteenth. Could a (the) court rule that the appellants are correct on the associational question, but the candidate still is barred under the Fourteenth? If there is a conflict between two amendments, what does a court do? Probably lets the Fourteenth win in this case, because the associational right doesn’t let anyone be president who isn’t native-born or under 35.
As I said, they can make the choice... but that choice can be rejected on the grounds of not meeting the requirements to hold office. It wouldn't really be a restriction on the 1st, since yeah we already have restrictions on who can be president in the first place. Like otherwise the end result is literally letting anyone run regardless of those requirements and then if they win... barring them from office at that point... which would problematic because so much time and money would have been wasted when that should have been cleared up before elections.
"Holding government and other public officials accountable" should be a major goal of ALL journalism. You are actually practicing it, and that's why you deserve the subscription.
So the questions presented don't question that Trump was part of an insurrection?
With the questions presented I would think that 1st will be resolved quickly (saying the president isn't an officer of the US would cause major problems), the 2nd might be were most of the argument takes place, for the 3rd also probably resolved quickly (they already can't do that for things like age etc from my understanding, rather they can make the choice... but that choice can be rejected on the grounds of not meeting the requirements to hold office)
POTUS swears an oath of office when inaugurated. Doesn't that make him/her an officer of the US?
The Constitution sets out 3 requirements for POTUS in Article II, Section 1: Minimum age 35, a natural born citizen, must have lived in the US for 14 years. So, if someone is younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, they're not qualified. Same as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I seem to recall a movement to draft Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for POTUS. Sadly, no way to get around his Austrian birth. Not qualified.
Neither is TFG, thanks to his shenanigans on 1/6/21.
Yeah I'm guessing the determination of who is an insurrectionist must fall under how the provisions of the amendment are executed (the second question)?
“The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
The Supreme Court resolved this issue with Bush v Gore: states are not required to list anyone on a presidential ballot, as they do not even need to hold an election:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. ... The state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution."
Events move along. Now Maine joined the party.
What happens if SCOTUS denies cert for this petition or for a petition from P01135809? I've been hearing that this would mean P01135809 would still go on the primary ballot but why wouldn't the CO Supreme Court ruling stand as the final word if SCOTUS doesn't want to take up the case (very hypothetical - seems like everyone expects they will take up the case)?
If they deny the petition the CO opinion would stand and he would not be on CO's primary and subsequently general (until this comes up again and SCOTUS takes it up... I mean they could choose to not take this up ever but that would be quite bad on their part)
The associational question is First Amendment, and the bar from office is Fourteenth. Could a (the) court rule that the appellants are correct on the associational question, but the candidate still is barred under the Fourteenth? If there is a conflict between two amendments, what does a court do? Probably lets the Fourteenth win in this case, because the associational right doesn’t let anyone be president who isn’t native-born or under 35.
As I said, they can make the choice... but that choice can be rejected on the grounds of not meeting the requirements to hold office. It wouldn't really be a restriction on the 1st, since yeah we already have restrictions on who can be president in the first place. Like otherwise the end result is literally letting anyone run regardless of those requirements and then if they win... barring them from office at that point... which would problematic because so much time and money would have been wasted when that should have been cleared up before elections.